Palatini v. the State
774 S.E.2d 818
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Palatini was charged with sexual exploitation of children after law enforcement found images on his computer.
- The computer was seized in December 2007; Palatini was arrested April 24, 2009.
- An initial six-count indictment (First Indictment) was filed, alleging dates between August 1, 2006 and December 31, 2007; Count 6 was later nolle pros?ui.
- A Second Indictment (2010) charged a single count mirroring Count 6 and stated the offense occurred on or about April 24, 2009.
- A Third Indictment (2012) identical to the First Indictment was issued but dismissed as outside the statute of limitations and not a proper supervening indictment.
- Palatini filed pre-trial special demurrers arguing the Second Indictment was vague and that the 2009 date was impossible because the computer had been seized by then; the trial court denied the demurrers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Second Indictment's date is impermissible. | Palatini argues the 2009 date is impossible given seizure in 2007. | Palatini contends the date makes the indictment defective in form. | Indictment not defective for date; specific date present and not after indictment. |
| Whether the indictment is perfect in form or subject to special demurrer for vagueness. | Palatini claims vague language about numerous images fails to describe the offense. | Indictment tracks the statutory language and provides sufficient description. | Indictment sufficiently describes the offense under OCGA 16-12-100 (b) (8); no special demurrer required. |
| Whether the form of the indictment permits the defense to prepare and avoid double jeopardy. | Palatini asserts lack of particularity could hamper defense and jeopardy protections. | Statutory language and description suffice to apprise defendant of offense. | Indictment is sufficient to permit intelligent defense and protect against double jeopardy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackmon v. State, 272 Ga. App. 854 (2005) (pre-trial special demurrer requires perfect form and substance)
- State v. Jones, 251 Ga. App. 192 (2001) (special demurrer standards; latitude in favor of State)
- State v. Corhen, 306 Ga. App. 495 (2010) (indictment review for form and sufficiency)
- Coalson v. State, 251 Ga. App. 761 (2001) (statutory offenses may be charged in the language of the statute)
- Kyler v. State, 94 Ga. App. 321 (1956) (indictment sufficiency when charging statutory offense)
- Burgeson v. State, 267 Ga. 102 (1996) (indictment tracks statutory language and is sufficient)
- Langlands v. State, 280 Ga. 799 (2006) (indictment date can be attacked as impossible when post-indictment range)
- Gunn v. State, 227 Ga. 786 (1971) (date specification and form considerations in indictments)